Peaceful_Critic said: I think this exchange conclusively proves that both participants are just trolling themselves and actually understand that the topic is subjective. If @RogertheShrubber thought visual arts is objective, he would not have to consider himself a critic, but perhaps a scientist, and what many considers of the quality would be irrelevant, since there would be just one version of fact. After all, you would not normally say "I think many would consider that gravity exists" or that "I do not consider myself a critic of electromagnetism" lol@RogertheShrubber Gonna reply since you are still active: "when I said artwork what I really meant was that it looks pretty, I'm not a critic of the visual arts but I highly doubt many would consider the artwork of SAO to be anything particularly impressive, technically or otherwise." SAO looks like any other A-1 pictures work. I don't agree that it looks pretty as much as just passable, though that's just my opinion. Why do you think it looks pretty? My standard would more so in the same lane as most Kyoani's or Shinseki's stuff. Just looking lovely probably doesn't affect my enjoyment any more than yours though so we can cross that out of the list easily. I think it would help to give some context. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a critic is critic noun (1) Emphasis mine, again. Reasoned opinion, it says, and I think most reasonable people would conclude that opinions are not objective. They are subjective, even if they are reasoned.crit·ic | \ ˈkri-tik \ Definition of critic (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique // Critics of the new law say that it will not reduce crime. b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances a literary critic a film critic a theater critic 2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment a fierce critic of immigration policies Then, @Peaceful_Critic (note his name) responds explicitly with his opinion -- he even says it's his opinion -- and then asks the prior why he thinks what he thinks. What is the relevance of what he thinks if it is just a fact. I can imagine a similar conversation being Peaceful_Critic: What do you think about 1 + 1? RogertheShrubber: It's 2. Peaceful_Critic: But what do you think? RogertheShrubber: It's beautiful. That must objectively prove that 2 is beautiful! (sarcasm) @Peaceful_Critic then goes on to say his "standard", which proves that he understands the question at hand is one of his personal biases, and not actually any fact. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Peaceful_Critic said: I think this exchange conclusively proves that both participants are just trolling themselves and actually understand that the topic is subjective. If @RogertheShrubber thought visual arts is objective, he would not have to consider himself a critic, but perhaps a scientist, and what many considers of the quality would be irrelevant, since there would be just one version of fact. After all, you would not normally say "I think many would consider that gravity exists" or that "I do not consider myself a critic of electromagnetism" lol@RogertheShrubber Gonna reply since you are still active: "when I said artwork what I really meant was that it looks pretty, I'm not a critic of the visual arts but I highly doubt many would consider the artwork of SAO to be anything particularly impressive, technically or otherwise." SAO looks like any other A-1 pictures work. I don't agree that it looks pretty as much as just passable, though that's just my opinion. Why do you think it looks pretty? My standard would more so in the same lane as most Kyoani's or Shinseki's stuff. Just looking lovely probably doesn't affect my enjoyment any more than yours though so we can cross that out of the list easily. I think it would help to give some context. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a critic is critic noun (1) Emphasis mine, again. Reasoned opinion, it says, and I think most reasonable people would conclude that opinions are not objective. They are subjective, even if they are reasoned.crit·ic | \ ˈkri-tik \ Definition of critic (Entry 1 of 2) 1a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique // Critics of the new law say that it will not reduce crime. b : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances a literary critic a film critic a theater critic 2 : one given to harsh or captious judgment a fierce critic of immigration policies Then, @Peaceful_Critic (note his name) responds explicitly with his opinion -- he even says it's his opinion -- and then asks the prior why he thinks what he thinks. What is the relevance of what he thinks if it is just a fact. I can imagine a similar conversation being Peaceful_Critic: What do you think about 1 + 1? RogertheShrubber: It's 2. Peaceful_Critic: But what do you think? RogertheShrubber: It's beautiful. That must objectively prove that 2 is beautiful! (sarcasm) @Peaceful_Critic then goes on to say his "standard", which proves that he understands the question at hand is one of his personal biases, and not actually any fact. Rather than stumble through a clear communication barrier why don't we try to instead construct a useful definition of objectivity. First we should build from some common ground. Do you consider mathematics to be objective? |
RogertheShrubber said: I assure you that the dictionary definition is not only not useless, but the leading theory of what the word means in the study of semantics.katsucats said: I recommend that you don't disingenuously conflate multiple definitions of words, as if you could use all those definitions interchangeably in the same context. Being aware of multiple languages myself, I posit that there isn't a single language in the world that has a distinct word for every single concept, such that this is no longer just you being unfamiliar with English -- which you surely are -- but you being disingenuous and a liar. For example, according to Merriam Webster: You are using the third definition in the context suitable for the first definition. In the OP, @thewiru says He is talking about objectivity as opposed to subjectivity. That's literally the unmistakable topic of this thread, so if you want to talk about something else, you're welcome to create your own thread instead of wasting everyone's times. Subjectivity is defined as an object of thought under independent existence. The object of thought can still be impartial, as I gave in a later example in my previous post, so the first and third definitions are in fact orthogonal and unrelated to each other. For example, I could say, "In my opinion, neither Tom nor Sammy are justified", which is impartial to both Tom and Sammy, but still exercises an opinion independent from any objective observation. I deem that this responsive should conclusively squash your misunderstanding if you have any shred of integrity, or perhaps your mastery of the English language is worse than I previously had thought. I'd take Merriam Webster's take on the definition of a word over your inane utterance any day of the week. Physics, first of all, relies on empirical observation. It's in the word, physical -- meaning of the natural world. Any physical conclusion must be sound and not just valid. Now let's move on to your primary confusion. I made the argument (supposing that A = internally consistent, and B = independently observable): P1. NOT B means to be subjective. P2. A AND NOT B C1. Therefore, subjective. You argue P3. Math, physics, and philosophy are A. P4. Math, physics, and philosophy are objective. C2. Therefore, C1 is wrong. However, your conclusion is invalid, because C1 specifically notes that NOT B is subjective, and not A. In fact, math, physics, and philosophy strive to be A AND B, that they are both internally consistent and independently verifiable, whether because they are directly observable or tautologically derived from an observable fact. They are objective because they are A AND B, and not A AND NOT B. More specifically, since A is completely irrelevant in this equation, they are objective because they are B, not NOT B. However, thoughts such as "that character is shy" is not independently observable because shyness is relative to the biases of the observer. What might be independently observable is the frequency or average volume of speech by the character, if we accept that it is a character, relative to other characters. However, the jump from that to shyness cannot be reconciled except by bald assertion -- opinion. According to Merriam Webster again, Emphasis mine. Note that "positive" knowledge refers to physical knowledge independently verifiable, as in by sense observation or scientific experimentation. Note that 2a says opinions are not based in positive knowledge. They are "in the mind" (1a) and "expressions of judgment" (3a). Sort of like the shyness of a character is an expression of judgment, since shyness is not measurable. You are tediously pedantic. You are operating under a useless definition to make your argument. RogertheShrubber said: Technically correct, which is why philosophers have tended to use the word intersubjective as opposed to objective, but for the sake of not being tediously pedantic as you are (!!), people have agreed to accept the independently verifiable (through science, etc.) as "objective".Under the condition that to be objective one must be independent of thought and perception means that literally nothing in our reality is objective. RogertheShrubber said: It's not unworkable, unless you're a tedious pedant. Most tend to assume that if there exists an independent world, then it must be observable by everyone, even when one person isn't aware that another person observes. For example, the fact that I can measure a house to truly separate any personal bias in description, and that another person could measure it and describe, through measurement, the exact same observation. And then I could walk away, and third person could measure it without my knowledge that he exists, and further verify that the measurements are indeed the same, demonstrates that the house exists independent of my cognition. That's the standard of science and positivism. More tightly, it is intersubjective, that we could all note the same thing, but for all intents and purposes that's what objectivity refers to. Note: You cannot measure shyness. Try it.In this case objectivity is merely a hypothetical ideal which is unreachable. Why would you operate under a definition which is this unworkable. RogertheShrubber said: That's some sophist bullshit, because art cannot be measured, so it doesn't follow. On the other hand, physical conclusions are measured, by definition, and math and some philosophy are tautologies based on objective concepts. Other philosophies, such as ethics or aesthetics, are not based on any objective concept, unless you're dogmatically religious, and there is thousands of years of philosophy to prove that these philosophies are not. There is no quantity that you can describe in art that is measurable, besides the physical medium in which it resides, which is not actually the point of the art.It seems clear to me that math is objective, as is physics as is philosophy. understanding the modes in which these institutions operate it must follow that artistic analysis has the capacity to be objective. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Enjoyment is pretty much the entire score. |
 |
RogertheShrubber said: We already have a clear and useful definition of objectivity, which is the one presented in the dictionary, and everyone else besides you are already using.katsucats said: I think this exchange conclusively proves that both participants are just trolling themselves and actually understand that the topic is subjective. If @RogertheShrubber thought visual arts is objective, he would not have to consider himself a critic, but perhaps a scientist, and what many considers of the quality would be irrelevant, since there would be just one version of fact. After all, you would not normally say "I think many would consider that gravity exists" or that "I do not consider myself a critic of electromagnetism" lol I think it would help to give some context. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a critic is Emphasis mine, again. Reasoned opinion, it says, and I think most reasonable people would conclude that opinions are not objective. They are subjective, even if they are reasoned. Then, @Peaceful_Critic (note his name) responds explicitly with his opinion -- he even says it's his opinion -- and then asks the prior why he thinks what he thinks. What is the relevance of what he thinks if it is just a fact. I can imagine a similar conversation being Peaceful_Critic: What do you think about 1 + 1? RogertheShrubber: It's 2. Peaceful_Critic: But what do you think? RogertheShrubber: It's beautiful. That must objectively prove that 2 is beautiful! (sarcasm) @Peaceful_Critic then goes on to say his "standard", which proves that he understands the question at hand is one of his personal biases, and not actually any fact. Rather than stumble through a clear communication barrier why don't we try to instead construct a useful definition of objectivity. First we should build from some common ground. Do you consider mathematics to be objective? Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment. 2. It is tautological. Physics is objective because: 1. It measures things independent from qualitative judgment. 2. The conclusions are tautological. Aesthetics is subjective because: 1. It supposes premises dependent on qualitative judgment. 2. It is sometimes tautological. There's practically nothing else to discuss when you're the only one who misuses the word, your own pet peeve. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: I assure you that the dictionary definition is not only not useless, but the leading theory of what the word means in the study of semantics.You are tediously pedantic. You are operating under a useless definition to make your argument. RogertheShrubber said: Technically correct, which is why philosophers have tended to use the word intersubjective as opposed to objective, but for the sake of not being tediously pedantic as you are (!!), people have agreed to accept the independently verifiable (through science, etc.) as "objective".Under the condition that to be objective one must be independent of thought and perception means that literally nothing in our reality is objective. RogertheShrubber said: It's not unworkable, unless you're a tedious pedant. Most tend to assume that if there exists an independent world, then it must be observable by everyone, even when one person isn't aware that another person observes. For example, the fact that I can measure a house to truly separate any personal bias in description, and that another person could measure it and describe, through measurement, the exact same observation. And then I could walk away, and third person could measure it without my knowledge that he exists, and further verify that the measurements are indeed the same, demonstrates that the house exists independent of my cognition. That's the standard of science and positivism. More tightly, it is intersubjective, that we could all note the same thing, but for all intents and purposes that's what objectivity refers to. Note: You cannot measure shyness. Try it.In this case objectivity is merely a hypothetical ideal which is unreachable. Why would you operate under a definition which is this unworkable. RogertheShrubber said: That's some sophist bullshit, because art cannot be measured, so it doesn't follow. On the other hand, physical conclusions are measured, by definition, and math and some philosophy are tautologies based on objective concepts. Other philosophies, such as ethics or aesthetics, are not based on any objective concept, unless you're dogmatically religious, and there is thousands of years of philosophy to prove that these philosophies are not. There is no quantity that you can describe in art that is measurable, besides the physical medium in which it resides, which is not actually the point of the art.It seems clear to me that math is objective, as is physics as is philosophy. understanding the modes in which these institutions operate it must follow that artistic analysis has the capacity to be objective. "There is no quantity that you can describe in art that is measurable," There is no quantity in mathematics or philosophy mich is measurable either yet they are considered objective, in fact much of physics is not measurable (I'm a physicist by the way). So they would also not be objective by your definition essentially making the word meaningless as it would describe nothing. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: We already have a clear and useful definition of objectivity, which is the one presented in the dictionary, and everyone else besides you are already using.Rather than stumble through a clear communication barrier why don't we try to instead construct a useful definition of objectivity. First we should build from some common ground. Do you consider mathematics to be objective? Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment. 2. It is tautological. Physics is objective because: 1. It measures things independent from qualitative judgment. 2. The conclusions are tautological. Aesthetics is subjective because: 1. It supposes premises dependent on qualitative judgment. 2. It is sometimes tautological. There's practically nothing else to discuss when you're the only one who misuses the word, your own pet peeve. "Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment." False, the fundamental axioms of mathematics are informed through intuition, i.e. qualitative judgement. As are many theorems of physics for which there is no empirical evidence. |
RogertheShrubber said: Describe one empirical thing that is not measurable. Math consists of tautologies based upon premises independent of qualitative judgment, which is what I said. There is no "quality" of 1. I don't care if you think it's beautiful, ugly, or morally right or wrong. 1 is just a mode of existence, a quantity, and anyone with a jar of marbles can measure the cardinality of a set.katsucats said: I assure you that the dictionary definition is not only not useless, but the leading theory of what the word means in the study of semantics. Technically correct, which is why philosophers have tended to use the word intersubjective as opposed to objective, but for the sake of not being tediously pedantic as you are (!!), people have agreed to accept the independently verifiable (through science, etc.) as "objective". It's not unworkable, unless you're a tedious pedant. Most tend to assume that if there exists an independent world, then it must be observable by everyone, even when one person isn't aware that another person observes. For example, the fact that I can measure a house to truly separate any personal bias in description, and that another person could measure it and describe, through measurement, the exact same observation. And then I could walk away, and third person could measure it without my knowledge that he exists, and further verify that the measurements are indeed the same, demonstrates that the house exists independent of my cognition. That's the standard of science and positivism. More tightly, it is intersubjective, that we could all note the same thing, but for all intents and purposes that's what objectivity refers to. Note: You cannot measure shyness. Try it. That's some sophist bullshit, because art cannot be measured, so it doesn't follow. On the other hand, physical conclusions are measured, by definition, and math and some philosophy are tautologies based on objective concepts. Other philosophies, such as ethics or aesthetics, are not based on any objective concept, unless you're dogmatically religious, and there is thousands of years of philosophy to prove that these philosophies are not. There is no quantity that you can describe in art that is measurable, besides the physical medium in which it resides, which is not actually the point of the art. "There is no quantity that you can describe in art that is measurable," There is no quantity in mathematics or philosophy mich is measurable either yet they are considered objective, in fact much of physics is not measurable (I'm a physicist by the way). So they would also not be objective by your definition essentially making the word meaningless as it would describe nothing. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
RogertheShrubber said: Yes, if you're being pedantic, but axioms are that which lead to contradiction if denied. For example, intelligent thought is impossible if X =/= X. There are no axioms behind aesthetics.katsucats said: We already have a clear and useful definition of objectivity, which is the one presented in the dictionary, and everyone else besides you are already using. Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment. 2. It is tautological. Physics is objective because: 1. It measures things independent from qualitative judgment. 2. The conclusions are tautological. Aesthetics is subjective because: 1. It supposes premises dependent on qualitative judgment. 2. It is sometimes tautological. There's practically nothing else to discuss when you're the only one who misuses the word, your own pet peeve. "Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment." False, the fundamental axioms of mathematics are informed through intuition, i.e. qualitative judgement. As are many theorems of physics for which there is no empirical evidence. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: Describe one empirical thing that is not measurable. Math consists of tautologies based upon premises independent of qualitative judgment, which is what I said. There is no "quality" of 1. I don't care if you think it's beautiful, ugly, or morally right or wrong. 1 is just a mode of existence, a quantity, and anyone with a jar of marbles can measure the cardinality of a set."There is no quantity that you can describe in art that is measurable," There is no quantity in mathematics or philosophy mich is measurable either yet they are considered objective, in fact much of physics is not measurable (I'm a physicist by the way). So they would also not be objective by your definition essentially making the word meaningless as it would describe nothing. "Describe one empirical thing that is not measurable." Empirical literally means measurable, this is why I have not used the word empirical but instead objective which means something which can either be empirical OR it can be logically rigorous (or both) |
RogertheShrubber said: No shit. So name a physical quality that's not measurable. And don't say the position or momentum of an electron. I understand you love semantic fallacies conflating different senses of a word, but that would be too much.katsucats said: Describe one empirical thing that is not measurable. Math consists of tautologies based upon premises independent of qualitative judgment, which is what I said. There is no "quality" of 1. I don't care if you think it's beautiful, ugly, or morally right or wrong. 1 is just a mode of existence, a quantity, and anyone with a jar of marbles can measure the cardinality of a set. "Describe one empirical thing that is not measurable." Empirical literally means measurable, this is why I have not used the word empirical but instead objective which means something which can either be empirical OR it can be logically rigorous (or both) |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: Yes, if you're being pedantic, but axioms are that which lead to contradiction if denied. For example, intelligent thought is impossible if X =/= X. There are no axioms behind aesthetics."Math is objective because: 1. It supposes premises independent from qualitative judgment." False, the fundamental axioms of mathematics are informed through intuition, i.e. qualitative judgement. As are many theorems of physics for which there is no empirical evidence. "but axioms are that which lead to contradiction if denied." also false, there can be a variety of axiomatic systems which are self consistent. For example in general mathematics it follows logically from the axioms that 1+1=2 however in boolean mathematics 1+1=0. Boolean mathematics is just as valid as general mathematics but its axiomatic system differs. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: No shit. So name a physical quality that's not measurable. And don't say the position or momentum of an electron. I understand you love semantic fallacies conflating different senses of a word, but that would be too much."Describe one empirical thing that is not measurable." Empirical literally means measurable, this is why I have not used the word empirical but instead objective which means something which can either be empirical OR it can be logically rigorous (or both) Ok how about the loss of information within a black hole. It's a physical quantity, it is observable (although it hasn't yet been observed) but it is unmeasurable due to the nature of black holes. Also heisenbergs uncertainty pricipal is part of reality, why would that not also count. Do you get to pick and choose the the scientific models which happen to fit your flawed philisophical ideal? |
HyperL said: Many people are straight up afraid of relativism for some damn reason (must be the JP effect). We gotta accept that many 'things' in so called 'existence' are indeed relativistic in nature, most especially those related to quality evaluation. "His [Walter Block's] thesis is that discrimination -- choosing one thing over another -- is an inevitable feature of the material world where scarcity of goods and time is the pervasive feature. There is no getting around it. You must discriminate, and therefore you must have the freedom to discriminate, which only means the freedom to choose. Without discrimination, there is no economizing taking place. It is chaos. The market embeds institutions that assist people in making the wisest possible choices given the alternatives. In this sense, discrimination is rational and socially optimal. For the state to presume to criminalize it based on social and political priorities amounts to a subversion of the market and of human liberty that leads to social conflict. The empirical detail in this work is as rigorous as the argument is radical. What politics regards as a dangerous inequality, Block regards as perfectly rational given existing realities." Objective criteria are nescessary, otherwise there will be no way to discriminate (Make a value judgement) between something good and something bad, so the quality of such thing would go down. I know it is already a jaded example... but just look at post-modern art. |
RogertheShrubber said: This is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is not an axiom. Boolean mathematics is a math field mod 2. There are logical axioms that must be assumed, which was the topic of the conversation. And then there are rules ("axioms" if you will) that define the parameters of a system.katsucats said: Yes, if you're being pedantic, but axioms are that which lead to contradiction if denied. For example, intelligent thought is impossible if X =/= X. There are no axioms behind aesthetics. "but axioms are that which lead to contradiction if denied." also false, there can be a variety of axiomatic systems which are self consistent. For example in general mathematics it follows logically from the axioms that 1+1=2 however in boolean mathematics 1+1=0. Boolean mathematics is just as valid as general mathematics but its axiomatic system differs. I think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning". The fact is that aesthetics have no such parameter, besides ones that each person makes for himself to satisfy his own subjective taste. I understand that some art has rules, like geometric perspective of Renaissance art, but those rules determine what is correct, nor what is good, or any other subjective property. Renaissance artists would have never said that a work is "exciting" because it distorts the linear perspectives, which was a technique that later genres used (in which the linear perspective was no longer a parameter of art). Similarly, one could never objectively say that integers is a good or exciting system due to its commutative or associative properties, only the direct tautological conclusions determined by those parameters. That's precisely why objective analysis is "boring", bad analysis in the aesthetic sense, because it derives no new information by definition. If art was objective, two people reading a synopsis must arrive at the same conclusion. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: This is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is not an axiom. Boolean mathematics is a math field mod 2. There are logical axioms that must be assumed, which was the topic of the conversation. And then there are rules ("axioms" if you will) that define the parameters of a system."but axioms are that which lead to contradiction if denied." also false, there can be a variety of axiomatic systems which are self consistent. For example in general mathematics it follows logically from the axioms that 1+1=2 however in boolean mathematics 1+1=0. Boolean mathematics is just as valid as general mathematics but its axiomatic system differs. I think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning". The fact is that aesthetics have no such parameter, besides ones that each person makes for himself to satisfy his own subjective taste. I understand that some art has rules, like geometric perspective of Renaissance art, but those rules determine what is correct, nor what is good, or any other subjective property. Renaissance artists would have never said that a work is "exciting" because it distorts the linear perspectives, which was a technique that later genres used (in which the linear perspective was no longer a parameter of art). Similarly, one could never objectively say that integers is a good or exciting system due to its commutative or associative properties, only the direct tautological conclusions determined by those parameters. That's precisely why objective analysis is "boring", bad analysis in the aesthetic sense, because it derives no new information by definition. If art was objective, two people reading a synopsis must arrive at the same conclusion. "This is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is not an axiom." I didn't say it was an axiom I said it followed logically from them. "There are logical axioms that must be assume" This is simply not true, an axiom would be something like the relationship between two well defined elements, in the example of general mathematics vs boolean mathematics this relationship differs. They contradict the others axiomatic system. there is no axiom which MUST be assumed just those which are useful to assume. "think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning"" This is not what I'm doing, I am trying to build a workable definition of objective with you. Once we understand what exactly makes mathematics objective I will move on to showing you how artistic review can satisfy these conditions. |
RogertheShrubber said: Okay, LOLkatsucats said: No shit. So name a physical quality that's not measurable. And don't say the position or momentum of an electron. I understand you love semantic fallacies conflating different senses of a word, but that would be too much. Ok how about the loss of information within a black hole. It's a physical quantity, it is observable (although it hasn't yet been observed) but it is unmeasurable due to the nature of black holes. Also heisenbergs uncertainty pricipal is part of reality, why would that not also count. Do you get to pick and choose the the scientific models which happen to fit your flawed philisophical ideal? There are qualities (i.e. information) that is in principle measurable, such that you could formally define it in the first place and there would be no mistake among anyone would it is. And there are certain situations in which certain things cannot be measured. That does not mean that it cannot be measured. We know precisely what position and momentum refer to because we know the relation between these qualities and other things we can measure. This is entirely different than art, in which we cannot even in principle measure something like shyness, under any condition. TL;DR Momentum is by definition measurable (mass * velocity), even if you can't measure it in an electron at the same time as position. Shyness is impossible to even measure, hence impossible to formally and accurately define without proxies that appeal to cultural norms. I'm losing interest in this fast because it's clear that you're just grandstanding with these pedantic objections that you're just hoping to dear God that I can't recognize the fallacy in them, like throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. You haven't even attempted to answer what artistic qualities you can measure. Even if I was completely wrong about physics -- which I'm not -- it would still be irrelevant to the measurability of aesthetics. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| This thread is frying my brain, as someone that barely got through the special ed math class at high school |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: Okay, LOLOk how about the loss of information within a black hole. It's a physical quantity, it is observable (although it hasn't yet been observed) but it is unmeasurable due to the nature of black holes. Also heisenbergs uncertainty pricipal is part of reality, why would that not also count. Do you get to pick and choose the the scientific models which happen to fit your flawed philisophical ideal? There are qualities (i.e. information) that is in principle measurable, such that you could formally define it in the first place and there would be no mistake among anyone would it is. And there are certain situations in which certain things cannot be measured. That does not mean that it cannot be measured. We know precisely what position and momentum refer to because we know the relation between these qualities and other things we can measure. This is entirely different than art, in which we cannot even in principle measure something like shyness, under any condition. TL;DR Momentum is by definition measurable (mass * velocity), even if you can't measure it in an electron at the same time as position. Shyness is impossible to even measure, hence impossible to formally and accurately define without proxies that appeal to cultural norms. I'm losing interest in this fast because it's clear that you're just grandstanding with these pedantic objections that you're just hoping to dear God that I can't recognize the fallacy in them, like throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. You haven't even attempted to answer what artistic qualities you can measure. Even if I was completely wrong about physics -- which I'm not -- it would still be irrelevant to the measurability of aesthetics. "You haven't even attempted to answer what artistic qualities you can measure." because that would be pointless until we agree upon a workable definition of objective which is what i'm trying to work towards with you. Also you are the one that is being pedantic, I could give you the definition of pedantic to convince you of this but that would be pedantic of me. I actually want to have this conversation with you (despite you consistently being a dick) but at every turn you are the one which is being difficult. [edit] "That does not mean that it cannot be measured." actually it does, it is not only impossible to measure the loss of information within a black hole but according to current scientific models it will NEVER be measurable. |
RogertheShrubberMay 20, 2019 4:17 PM
RogertheShrubber said: Wrong. 1+1=2 logically follows from the parameters of the field called integers.katsucats said: This is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is not an axiom. Boolean mathematics is a math field mod 2. There are logical axioms that must be assumed, which was the topic of the conversation. And then there are rules ("axioms" if you will) that define the parameters of a system. I think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning". The fact is that aesthetics have no such parameter, besides ones that each person makes for himself to satisfy his own subjective taste. I understand that some art has rules, like geometric perspective of Renaissance art, but those rules determine what is correct, nor what is good, or any other subjective property. Renaissance artists would have never said that a work is "exciting" because it distorts the linear perspectives, which was a technique that later genres used (in which the linear perspective was no longer a parameter of art). Similarly, one could never objectively say that integers is a good or exciting system due to its commutative or associative properties, only the direct tautological conclusions determined by those parameters. That's precisely why objective analysis is "boring", bad analysis in the aesthetic sense, because it derives no new information by definition. If art was objective, two people reading a synopsis must arrive at the same conclusion. "This is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is not an axiom." I didn't say it was an axiom I said it followed logically from them. RogertheShrubber said: This is entirely true."There are logical axioms that must be assume" This is simply not true, an axiom would be something like the relationship between two well defined elements, in the example of general mathematics vs boolean mathematics this relationship differs. They contradict the others axiomatic system. there is no axiom which MUST be assumed just those which are useful to assume. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ The rules that define the parameters of a system is irrelevant to the objectivity/subjectivity of aesthetics because aesthetics have no such rules. RogertheShrubber said: What you are doing is avoiding the topic. If you're like to make a new thread about the philosophical merits of empiricism, or axioms, then be my guest. I might follow. But none of this has jack to do with aestheticism and you know it. Nor does the parameters of a field have any interesting commentary on objectivity. Empiricism requires intuition to the extent that senses are trusted, that identity exists (X=X), and syllogisms, cause and effect are possible. If you want to argue that science is subjective for that, then the Christian fundamentalists will love you for it. I, on the other hand, have no interest in diving, again, into pedantic metaphysics with a solipsist."think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning"" This is not what I'm doing, I am trying to build a workable definition of objective with you. Once we understand what exactly makes mathematics objective I will move on to showing you how artistic review can satisfy these conditions. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I agree but eventually, it's up to each individual to decide how they want to rate even if they didn't realize or are unaware they are actually rating it base on enjoyment despite how much they want to convince themselves and others they don't rate base on enjoyment. |
RogertheShrubber said: Is this some kind of I'm rubber you're glue projection? Are you 6? The workable definition of objectivity is precisely described in any high school level philosophy textbook on metaphysics and ethics, and presumed in every scientific text. You did not graduate college without knowing it, as a proclaimed physicist, so let's not pretend you're doing something so noble as not trolling.katsucats said: Okay, LOL There are qualities (i.e. information) that is in principle measurable, such that you could formally define it in the first place and there would be no mistake among anyone would it is. And there are certain situations in which certain things cannot be measured. That does not mean that it cannot be measured. We know precisely what position and momentum refer to because we know the relation between these qualities and other things we can measure. This is entirely different than art, in which we cannot even in principle measure something like shyness, under any condition. TL;DR Momentum is by definition measurable (mass * velocity), even if you can't measure it in an electron at the same time as position. Shyness is impossible to even measure, hence impossible to formally and accurately define without proxies that appeal to cultural norms. I'm losing interest in this fast because it's clear that you're just grandstanding with these pedantic objections that you're just hoping to dear God that I can't recognize the fallacy in them, like throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. You haven't even attempted to answer what artistic qualities you can measure. Even if I was completely wrong about physics -- which I'm not -- it would still be irrelevant to the measurability of aesthetics. "You haven't even attempted to answer what artistic qualities you can measure." because that would be pointless until we agree upon a workable definition of objective which is what i'm trying to work towards with you. Also you are the one that is being pedantic, I could give you the definition of pedantic to convince you of this but that would be pedantic of me. I actually want to have this conversation with you (despite you consistently being a dick) but at every turn you are the one which is being difficult. If being a dick is wanting to stay on topic, then I'm the biggest dick, because I refuse to let you waste my time further with these moving targets. http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1312/subjective.htm Actually do the assignment on that page. It might help! |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: Wrong. 1+1=2 logically follows from the parameters of the field called integers."This is irrelevant. 1+1=2 is not an axiom." I didn't say it was an axiom I said it followed logically from them. RogertheShrubber said: This is entirely true."There are logical axioms that must be assume" This is simply not true, an axiom would be something like the relationship between two well defined elements, in the example of general mathematics vs boolean mathematics this relationship differs. They contradict the others axiomatic system. there is no axiom which MUST be assumed just those which are useful to assume. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ The rules that define the parameters of a system is irrelevant to the objectivity/subjectivity of aesthetics because aesthetics have no such rules. RogertheShrubber said: What you are doing is avoiding the topic. If you're like to make a new thread about the philosophical merits of empiricism, or axioms, then be my guest. I might follow. But none of this has jack to do with aestheticism and you know it. Nor does the parameters of a field have any interesting commentary on objectivity. Empiricism requires intuition to the extent that senses are trusted, that identity exists (X=X), and syllogisms, cause and effect are possible. If you want to argue that science is subjective for that, then the Christian fundamentalists will love you for it. I, on the other hand, have no interest in diving, again, into pedantic metaphysics with a solipsist."think you have just given up at this point since we are getting further and further from the point. I am not interested in argument for argument's sake, just so you can contradict minutiae and act like that's a proxy for "winning"" This is not what I'm doing, I am trying to build a workable definition of objective with you. Once we understand what exactly makes mathematics objective I will move on to showing you how artistic review can satisfy these conditions. "Wrong. 1+1=2 logically follows from the parameters of the field called integers." All of mathematics follow logically from axioms, including the fact that 1+1=2. What the are you trying to say? 1+1 does not equal 2 in boolean mathematics. I genuinely don't understand your point. are you really using plato to make your argument? I proved to you that two axiomatic systems can exist which contradict each other that which both are valid. It follows logically that no single axiom MUST be true. "But none of this has jack to do with aestheticism and you know it." I'm getting there but you're making it bloody difficult |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: Is this some kind of I'm rubber you're glue projection? Are you 6? The workable definition of objectivity is precisely described in any high school level philosophy textbook on metaphysics and ethics, and presumed in every scientific text. You did not graduate college without knowing it, as a proclaimed physicist, so let's not pretend you're doing something so noble as not trolling."You haven't even attempted to answer what artistic qualities you can measure." because that would be pointless until we agree upon a workable definition of objective which is what i'm trying to work towards with you. Also you are the one that is being pedantic, I could give you the definition of pedantic to convince you of this but that would be pedantic of me. I actually want to have this conversation with you (despite you consistently being a dick) but at every turn you are the one which is being difficult. If being a dick is wanting to stay on topic, then I'm the biggest dick, because I refuse to let you waste my time further with these moving targets. http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1312/subjective.htm Actually do the assignment on that page. It might help! "The workable definition of objectivity is precisely described in any high school level philosophy textbook on metaphysics and ethics, and presumed in every scientific text." yes but we clearly disagree on what this definition means, stop being difficult. [edit]"If you want to argue that science is subjective for that, then the Christian fundamentalists will love you for it." this is not what I'm arguing for, quite the opposite actually. I am simply trying to convince you that your defenition of objectivity cannot be applied to mathematics, physics etc. From there we can agree that it may be pragmatic to use a different definition of objectivity and from that definition I will show you that aesthetic analysis can meet those criteria. |
RogertheShrubberMay 20, 2019 4:31 PM
RogertheShrubber said: Nevertheless, we know what information is, because information is defined in terms of something that can be measured in general. We know that information within a black hole cannot be measured because we know precisely what information is. That would be impossible to state objectively if information had no physical basis to begin with, like shyness.[edit] "That does not mean that it cannot be measured." actually it does, it is not only impossible to measure the loss of information within a black hole but according to current scientific models it will NEVER be measurable. This is the last response I'll entertain on the topic of physics. You can't intimidate me by claiming to be a physicist. I'm not a physicist, but I'm close. With respect to this topic, I don't care if you're going to contradict any more of my statements on some irrelevant technicality that does not even assist your argument against subjectivity in any way. It is self-evident that information has a formal meaning in science that lends to it being a measurable quantity, regardless of the black hole. The fact that you're making this an issue has to be some kind of disingenuous posturing of some kind. It is not hard to understand that while "10 inches" is precise, "large" is not. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, because "speed" is precise. That would be nonsense as a conclusion if no one could tell you precisely what speed is. Freshman undergraduates got that the first time it was explained to them. High school students got it. You should too. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: Nevertheless, we know what information is, because information is defined in terms of something that can be measured in general. We know that information within a black hole cannot be measured because we know precisely what information is. That would be impossible to state objectively if information had no physical basis to begin with, like shyness.[edit] "That does not mean that it cannot be measured." actually it does, it is not only impossible to measure the loss of information within a black hole but according to current scientific models it will NEVER be measurable. This is the last response I'll entertain on the topic of physics. You can't intimidate me by claiming to be a physicist. I'm not a physicist, but I'm close. With respect to this topic, I don't care if you're going to contradict any more of my statements on some irrelevant technicality that does not even assist your argument against subjectivity in any way. It is self-evident that information has a formal meaning in science that lends to it being a measurable quantity, regardless of the black hole. The fact that you're making this an issue has to be some kind of disingenuous posturing of some kind. It is not hard to understand that while "10 inches" is precise, "large" is not. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, because "speed" is precise. That would be nonsense as a conclusion if no one could tell you precisely what speed is. Freshman undergraduates got that the first time it was explained to them. High school students got it. You should too. My whole point is to show you that to be objective is not to deal exclusively in measurable quantities. |
RogertheShrubber said: 1+1=2 is not an axiom of mathematics, it's a parameter of certain math fields, including integers and real numbers. Nothing in math says 1+1 has to be 2.katsucats said: Wrong. 1+1=2 logically follows from the parameters of the field called integers. This is entirely true. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ The rules that define the parameters of a system is irrelevant to the objectivity/subjectivity of aesthetics because aesthetics have no such rules. What you are doing is avoiding the topic. If you're like to make a new thread about the philosophical merits of empiricism, or axioms, then be my guest. I might follow. But none of this has jack to do with aestheticism and you know it. Nor does the parameters of a field have any interesting commentary on objectivity. Empiricism requires intuition to the extent that senses are trusted, that identity exists (X=X), and syllogisms, cause and effect are possible. If you want to argue that science is subjective for that, then the Christian fundamentalists will love you for it. I, on the other hand, have no interest in diving, again, into pedantic metaphysics with a solipsist. "Wrong. 1+1=2 logically follows from the parameters of the field called integers." All of mathematics follow logically from axioms, including the fact that 1+1=2. What the are you trying to say? 1+1 does not equal 2 in boolean mathematics. I genuinely don't understand your point. RogertheShrubber said: X=X has to be true. You did not use any axioms. You used parameters of two distinct systems and misapplied them to each other.are you really using plato to make your argument? I proved to you that two axiomatic systems can exist which contradict each other that which both are valid. It follows logically that no single axiom MUST be true. Merriam-Webster, axiom: axiom noun Emphasis mine.ax·i·om | \ ˈak-sē-əm \ Definition of axiom 1 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate sense 1 one of the axioms of the theory of evolution 2 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth // cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have" 3 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit // the axioms of wisdom RogertheShrubber said: Facts are difficult to people who don't care about them."But none of this has jack to do with aestheticism and you know it." I'm getting there but you're making it bloody difficult |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
RogertheShrubber said: Yet, you have not shown anything besides using reasoning that could on one hand reject science. That happens to be a common fundamentalist argument.katsucats said: My whole point is to show you that to be objective is not to deal exclusively in measurable quantities. Nevertheless, we know what information is, because information is defined in terms of something that can be measured in general. We know that information within a black hole cannot be measured because we know precisely what information is. That would be impossible to state objectively if information had no physical basis to begin with, like shyness. This is the last response I'll entertain on the topic of physics. You can't intimidate me by claiming to be a physicist. I'm not a physicist, but I'm close. With respect to this topic, I don't care if you're going to contradict any more of my statements on some irrelevant technicality that does not even assist your argument against subjectivity in any way. It is self-evident that information has a formal meaning in science that lends to it being a measurable quantity, regardless of the black hole. The fact that you're making this an issue has to be some kind of disingenuous posturing of some kind. It is not hard to understand that while "10 inches" is precise, "large" is not. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, because "speed" is precise. That would be nonsense as a conclusion if no one could tell you precisely what speed is. Freshman undergraduates got that the first time it was explained to them. High school students got it. You should too. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: 1+1=2 is not an axiom of mathematics, it's a parameter of certain math fields, including integers and real numbers. Nothing in math says 1+1 has to be 2."Wrong. 1+1=2 logically follows from the parameters of the field called integers." All of mathematics follow logically from axioms, including the fact that 1+1=2. What the are you trying to say? 1+1 does not equal 2 in boolean mathematics. I genuinely don't understand your point. RogertheShrubber said: X=X has to be true. You did not use any axioms. You used parameters of two distinct systems and misapplied them to each other.are you really using plato to make your argument? I proved to you that two axiomatic systems can exist which contradict each other that which both are valid. It follows logically that no single axiom MUST be true. Merriam-Webster, axiom: axiom noun Emphasis mine.ax·i·om | \ ˈak-sē-əm \ Definition of axiom 1 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate sense 1 one of the axioms of the theory of evolution 2 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth // cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have" 3 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit // the axioms of wisdom RogertheShrubber said: Facts are difficult to people who don't care about them."But none of this has jack to do with aestheticism and you know it." I'm getting there but you're making it bloody difficult "1+1=2 is not an axiom of mathematics, it's a parameter of certain math fields, including integers and real numbers. Nothing in math says 1+1 has to be 2." I never said it did, nor did i say it was an axiom, I said it followed logically from the axioms of general mathematics. I made this abundantly clear. "X=X has to be true. You did not use any axioms" false in boolean mathematics 1+1=1 which implies 1=0 the fact that an element is equal (or not equal) to itself is indeed an axiom. believe me I understand the definition of an axiom, I was working under it the whole time. the axioms which form the basis of boolean mathematics are accepted as true within that system. "Facts are difficult to people who don't care about them." dude I've tried to be nice to you why do you have to be an ass. You are the one that is unwilling to accept what I have been telling you. |
RogertheShrubberMay 20, 2019 4:58 PM
| wow there is some serious intelligence measuring contest going around here but ye i agree if you think something is objective then their should be some objective measurements for it |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: Yet, you have not shown anything besides using reasoning that could on one hand reject science. That happens to be a common fundamentalist argument.My whole point is to show you that to be objective is not to deal exclusively in measurable quantities. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world. "Yet, you have not shown anything besides using reasoning that could on one hand reject science. That happens to be a common fundamentalist argument. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world." I am not rejecting science i am trying to change your way of thinking about objectivity by showing you that your definition in unworkably strict. Science is objective but not in the way you claim it to be. Mathematics for example is not based on measurable quantities, it is based exclusively on rigorous logic and yet mathematics is objective. this is my point |
| I think I'm not smart enough for this thread. Even so, I believe objectivity (when it comes to art) is an illusion. Being critical of a work is not the same as being "objective" about it. When one critics a piece of art, it's implied it's their assessment. Sure, more grounded on art and critic theory, but still a personnal analysis. Now, when one says they are being "objective", they are saying their review is devoid of personnal preferences and beliefs, what isn't possible being a human being with their own traits, tastes, interests, culture, media exposure, upbringing, prior experiences and so on. There isn't objectively good and bad art, but art that appeals to you or repels you. So yeah, I kinda agree with you, even if I don't think relativism is the end of the world some paint it to be, especially regarding art, in which subjectivity and individual perception is the focal point. |
KosmonautMay 20, 2019 5:03 PM
 |
RogertheShrubber said: Then you are just wrong. 1+1=2 does not follow from any axiom in mathematics. There is no such thing as "general mathematics", and if there were, it wouldn't apply to all mathematics anyways. You wouldn't use the rules for baseball in basketball, unless you're a liar. Nor does the fact that baseball and basketball have different rules contradict the fact that baseball rules are objectively true within baseball, and basketball rules are objectively true within basketball, trivially so, by definition.katsucats said: 1+1=2 is not an axiom of mathematics, it's a parameter of certain math fields, including integers and real numbers. Nothing in math says 1+1 has to be 2. X=X has to be true. You did not use any axioms. You used parameters of two distinct systems and misapplied them to each other. Merriam-Webster, axiom: Emphasis mine. Facts are difficult to people who don't care about them. "1+1=2 is not an axiom of mathematics, it's a parameter of certain math fields, including integers and real numbers. Nothing in math says 1+1 has to be 2." I never said it did, nor did i say it was an axiom, I said it followed logically from the axioms of general mathematics. I made this abundantly clear. RogertheShrubber said: X=X does not mean that X=Y is not true. If an element is not equal to itself, then nothing can ever be communicated, since the meaning of anything would be unstable. I find it funny that you instinctively said "false", and then you realized how wrong you were."X=X has to be true. You did not use any axioms" false in boolean mathematics 1+1=0 which implies 1=-1 the fact that an element is equal (or not equal) to itself is indeed an axiom. RogertheShrubber said: Believe me, you don't. I'm starting to question whether you are even a physicist.believe me I understand the definition of an axiom, I was working under it the whole time. the axioms which form the basis of boolean mathematics are accepted as true within that system. RogertheShrubber said: I'm unwilling to accept what you're telling me because it's trivially untrue, so much so that a high school student could decisively tell you so, and he would be right. You don't have to be nice, just stop being an obstinate cog in the wheel stating completely irrelevant and superfluous facts out of context. I'd mind less if you called me a fucking retard and then got back to the topic rather than playing pretend nice guy while wasting time. Is that so hard to understand? People don't need to accept that which is untrue, no matter how much you repeat them without justification."Facts are difficult to people who don't care about them." dude I've tried to be nice to you why do you have to be an ass. You are the one that is unwilling to accept what I have been telling you. Frankly, the terminology of what you call "axiom" here could not be less important. Applying rules from system A to system B and calling it a contradiction is just so blatantly false that no beginner would dare make that mistake. I'll admit that I've pressed CTRL+X to cut on a Mac before realizing that it's not a PC, but I'm not going to go online and argue with people that different hotkeys have broken my view of objectivity. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
RogertheShrubber said: The scientific method derives independently verifiable conclusions exactly in the way I claim it to be. If not, explain how it is not. Quantities itself is measurable by definition. Abstract quantities are defined based on relations to measurable quantities. Rigorous logic does not make something objective. Premises that are independent of individual judgment -- as per definition -- makes something objective. This has all been proven by myself, using the dictionary and other sources. I'll give another example:katsucats said: Yet, you have not shown anything besides using reasoning that could on one hand reject science. That happens to be a common fundamentalist argument. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world. "Yet, you have not shown anything besides using reasoning that could on one hand reject science. That happens to be a common fundamentalist argument. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world." I am not rejecting science i am trying to change your way of thinking about objectivity by showing you that your definition in unworkably strict. Science is objective but not in the way you claim it to be. Mathematics for example is not based on measurable quantities, it is based exclusively on rigorous logic and yet mathematics is objective. this is my point P1. I believe action anime are good. P2. SAO is an action anime. C1. SAO is good. That's a rigorous, if trivial, defense of an 100% subjective opinion. Your point is demonstrably wrong and easily so. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Aastra343 said: That's okay, neither is @Rogertheshrubber. In fact, you're more right than he is.I think I'm not smart enough for this thread. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: Then you are just wrong. 1+1=2 does not follow from any axiom in mathematics. There is no such thing as "general mathematics", and if there were, it wouldn't apply to all mathematics anyways. You wouldn't use the rules for baseball in basketball, unless you're a liar. Nor does the fact that baseball and basketball have different rules contradict the fact that baseball rules are objectively true within baseball, and basketball rules are objectively true within basketball, trivially so, by definition."1+1=2 is not an axiom of mathematics, it's a parameter of certain math fields, including integers and real numbers. Nothing in math says 1+1 has to be 2." I never said it did, nor did i say it was an axiom, I said it followed logically from the axioms of general mathematics. I made this abundantly clear. RogertheShrubber said: X=X does not mean that X=Y is not true. If an element is not equal to itself, then nothing can ever be communicated, since the meaning of anything would be unstable. I find it funny that you instinctively said "false", and then you realized how wrong you were."X=X has to be true. You did not use any axioms" false in boolean mathematics 1+1=0 which implies 1=-1 the fact that an element is equal (or not equal) to itself is indeed an axiom. RogertheShrubber said: Believe me, you don't. I'm starting to question whether you are even a physicist.believe me I understand the definition of an axiom, I was working under it the whole time. the axioms which form the basis of boolean mathematics are accepted as true within that system. RogertheShrubber said: I'm unwilling to accept what you're telling me because it's trivially untrue, so much so that a high school student could decisively tell you so, and he would be right. You don't have to be nice, just stop being an obstinate cog in the wheel stating completely irrelevant and superfluous facts out of context. I'd mind less if you called me a fucking retard and then got back to the topic rather than playing pretend nice guy while wasting time. Is that so hard to understand? People don't need to accept that which is untrue, no matter how much you repeat them without justification."Facts are difficult to people who don't care about them." dude I've tried to be nice to you why do you have to be an ass. You are the one that is unwilling to accept what I have been telling you. Frankly, the terminology of what you call "axiom" here could not be less important. Applying rules from system A to system B and calling it a contradiction is just so blatantly false that no beginner would dare make that mistake. I'll admit that I've pressed CTRL+X to cut on a Mac before realizing that it's not a PC, but I'm not going to go online and argue with people that different hotkeys have broken my view of objectivity. "Then you are just wrong. 1+1=2 does not follow from any axiom in mathematics." yes it does, this is literally how mathematics is constructed. A number of axioms are proposed such as the definition of destinct elements and their realtionship to eachother then a series of logic is used to build on these axioms to describe operations within those elements and from those operations as well as properties like commutativity and assosciativity within sets of elements under operations. The fact that 1 exists and is defined, that it is possible to apply addition and that that is defined and that the element 2 is defined with respect to 1 (this is how the natural numbers are composed) then it follows from rigorous logic that 1+1=2. EVERYTHING in mathematics follows from the axioms, this is literally what mathematics is. How a distinct element is defined IS an axiom, X=X is an axiom (but notably it is non-rigorous) |
katsucats said: Aastra343 said: That's okay, neither is @Rogertheshrubber. In fact, you're more right than he is.I think I'm not smart enough for this thread. Fuck you dude, It's not my fault you're incapable of understand arguments when their spoonfed to you |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: The scientific method derives independently verifiable conclusions exactly in the way I claim it to be. If not, explain how it is not. Quantities itself is measurable by definition. Abstract quantities are defined based on relations to measurable quantities. Rigorous logic does not make something objective. Premises that are independent of individual judgment -- as per definition -- makes something objective. This has all been proven by myself, using the dictionary and other sources. I'll give another example:"Yet, you have not shown anything besides using reasoning that could on one hand reject science. That happens to be a common fundamentalist argument. John: "It is unreasonable to believe anything on faith." Jane: "Everyone has faith in something. You have faith that sense is real." If that's the direction you want to go, then have fun arguing against yourself in your make-belief world." I am not rejecting science i am trying to change your way of thinking about objectivity by showing you that your definition in unworkably strict. Science is objective but not in the way you claim it to be. Mathematics for example is not based on measurable quantities, it is based exclusively on rigorous logic and yet mathematics is objective. this is my point P1. I believe action anime are good. P2. SAO is an action anime. C1. SAO is good. That's a rigorous, if trivial, defense of an 100% subjective opinion. Your point is demonstrably wrong and easily so. "The scientific method derives independently verifiable conclusions exactly in the way I claim it to be. If not, explain how it is not." There are many cases where theorems are derived mathematically (i.e through logic) "Quantities itself is measurable by definition." Not necessarily, only within certain axiomatic systems. "Rigorous logic does not make something objective." mathematics is objective, if you agree then you must agree that rigorous logic makes something objective. "Premises that are independent of individual judgment" in mathematics they are not, axioms are informed by intuition. P1. I believe action anime are good. P2. SAO is an action anime. C1. SAO is good. That's a rigorous, if trivial, defense of an 100% subjective opinion. If you were to show that 1. there is a valid justification for why action anime are good (that which is self consistent) and 2. that SAO is indeed an action anime then yes this would be a rigorous and thus objective case. Although this would likely do little to convince many people. |
RogertheShrubberMay 20, 2019 5:20 PM
RogertheShrubber said: No, that's the rules of a ring.katsucats said: Then you are just wrong. 1+1=2 does not follow from any axiom in mathematics. There is no such thing as "general mathematics", and if there were, it wouldn't apply to all mathematics anyways. You wouldn't use the rules for baseball in basketball, unless you're a liar. Nor does the fact that baseball and basketball have different rules contradict the fact that baseball rules are objectively true within baseball, and basketball rules are objectively true within basketball, trivially so, by definition. X=X does not mean that X=Y is not true. If an element is not equal to itself, then nothing can ever be communicated, since the meaning of anything would be unstable. I find it funny that you instinctively said "false", and then you realized how wrong you were. Believe me, you don't. I'm starting to question whether you are even a physicist. I'm unwilling to accept what you're telling me because it's trivially untrue, so much so that a high school student could decisively tell you so, and he would be right. You don't have to be nice, just stop being an obstinate cog in the wheel stating completely irrelevant and superfluous facts out of context. I'd mind less if you called me a fucking retard and then got back to the topic rather than playing pretend nice guy while wasting time. Is that so hard to understand? People don't need to accept that which is untrue, no matter how much you repeat them without justification. Frankly, the terminology of what you call "axiom" here could not be less important. Applying rules from system A to system B and calling it a contradiction is just so blatantly false that no beginner would dare make that mistake. I'll admit that I've pressed CTRL+X to cut on a Mac before realizing that it's not a PC, but I'm not going to go online and argue with people that different hotkeys have broken my view of objectivity. "Then you are just wrong. 1+1=2 does not follow from any axiom in mathematics." yes it does, this is literally how mathematics is constructed. A number of axioms are proposed such as the definition of destinct elements and their realtionship to eachother then a series of logic is used to build on these axioms to describe operations within those elements and from those operations as well as properties like commutativity and assosciativity within sets of elements under operations. The fact that 1 exists and is defined, that it is possible to apply addition and that that is defined and that the element 2 is defined with respect to 1 (this is how the natural numbers are composed) then it follows from rigorous logic that 1+1=2. EVERYTHING in mathematics follows from the axioms, this is literally what mathematics is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) Note: Not a field, my mistake. Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system. RogertheShrubber said: Rigor is irrelevant when it comes to axioms because they are by definition self-evident. X=X has to be true, and it cannot be proven to be true.How a distinct element is defined IS an axiom, X=X is an axiom (but notably it is non-rigorous) |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Peaceful_Critic said: "But this is what I'm disagreeing with, if it's so bad it's funny I would argue that it still isn't good." I wasn't arguing it was good, that's why I said so bad it's funny. " Sure the fact that it's funny meant you got something out of it but that something has little to no artistic value." Humor is something of artistic value though, just not in the unintentionally laughing at this way. "In this way you are choosing to enjoy something which you know makes no sense. With hype it's the same idea, i know that the series is poorly constructed but I am willing to suspend my disbelief to allow myself to become invested while still being aware that it is doing a poor job of creating tension etc." That is in no way similar, I didn't choose to enjoy it in that case. I can't choose what I enjoy period. If I thought I could, my beliefs would align with yours as enjoying something would lose all value as I am able to make it up out of thin air. I just suspended my disbelief so I could accept it as a work of fiction, that's all it did. The work needs to be well written to make me enjoy it. "Humor is something of artistic value though, just not in the unintentionally laughing at this way." yes i agree it has some value but my point was that in the context of something which is so bad that it's funny this comedy has little value (but not none). "The work needs to be well written to make me enjoy it." but you just gave an example where this is not the case. if a series were so bad it were funny you would enjoy it but clearly it is not well written. |
katsucats said: RogertheShrubber said: No, that's the rules of a ring."Then you are just wrong. 1+1=2 does not follow from any axiom in mathematics." yes it does, this is literally how mathematics is constructed. A number of axioms are proposed such as the definition of destinct elements and their realtionship to eachother then a series of logic is used to build on these axioms to describe operations within those elements and from those operations as well as properties like commutativity and assosciativity within sets of elements under operations. The fact that 1 exists and is defined, that it is possible to apply addition and that that is defined and that the element 2 is defined with respect to 1 (this is how the natural numbers are composed) then it follows from rigorous logic that 1+1=2. EVERYTHING in mathematics follows from the axioms, this is literally what mathematics is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) Note: Not a field, my mistake. Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system. RogertheShrubber said: Rigor is irrelevant when it comes to axioms because they are by definition self-evident. X=X has to be true, and it cannot be proven to be true.How a distinct element is defined IS an axiom, X=X is an axiom (but notably it is non-rigorous) "Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system." Yes I agree 1+1 would be undefined in the group of positive integers under the operation addition but this does not mean that the fact that 1+1=2 does not follow from the axioms of mathematics within the group of real numbers under addition. The fact that 1+1 does not always equal 2 depending on your system does not mean it does not follow from the axioms, this is actually fundamentally what I am trying to get you to understand. "X=X has to be true, and it cannot be proven to be true." Yes there is no proof for this axiom but it can be and is justifiable, elementary number theory does this. It makes a justification for why this is a useful (can be used to construct more complex ideas) as well as self consistent (does not lead to logical inconsistencies) axiomatic basis. |
| I think separating enjoyment from the score is perfectly valid. Let's take Excel Saga as an example. That show has the laziest bare-bones plot and characterization imaginable, not even trying to make a narrative that would remain cohesive if all the jokes were taken out (which is the sign of a truly great parody, by the way), the animation is extremely uneven and, a lot of times, janky, and it's dated as hell in its referential nature. But it's still serviceable technically and sounds great in both Japanese and English and there's a lot of creativity on display. It's a 6.5/10 series. It's also one of the funniest fucking anime of all time, with endlessly rewatchable and quotable episodes and mountains of hilarious references and details all throughout. On an enjoyment scale, it's an 11/10. But if I gave it the 10/10 score maximum MAL allows, that would grossly misrepresent the quality of the series--even if it's exceptionally funny, it doesn't erase the lazy narrative or the inconsistent visuals from existence. This is why the long-form review is important: Looking at a score doesn't tell you the full story. Not every 6/10 is created equal--some are more equal than others. |
 This glorious signature image was created by @Mayumi! I am the Arbiter of Absolute Truth, and here is my wisdom: "Anime was always influenced by the West. This is not news. Shoujo is the superior genre primarily aimed at young people. Harem/isekai are lazy genres that refuse any meaningful innovation. There is no 'Golden Age.' There will always be top-shelf anime. You should be watching Carole & Tuesday." |
RogertheShrubber said: Notice your use of the word "derived". One must ask derived from what? Models of physical observations, or personal opinion? Clearly, the former. That has been repeatedly stated to you that logic in itself does not make something objective. It has also been stated that logical derivation from physical facts are tautological, by definition. The word tautology means that they mean exactly the same thing. So that a logically derived theorem cannot be independent from observation. Furthermore, mathematical systems aren't even described by the scientific method. Science describes how logic can be verified.katsucats said: The scientific method derives independently verifiable conclusions exactly in the way I claim it to be. If not, explain how it is not. Quantities itself is measurable by definition. Abstract quantities are defined based on relations to measurable quantities. Rigorous logic does not make something objective. Premises that are independent of individual judgment -- as per definition -- makes something objective. This has all been proven by myself, using the dictionary and other sources. I'll give another example: P1. I believe action anime are good. P2. SAO is an action anime. C1. SAO is good. That's a rigorous, if trivial, defense of an 100% subjective opinion. Your point is demonstrably wrong and easily so. "The scientific method derives independently verifiable conclusions exactly in the way I claim it to be. If not, explain how it is not." There are many cases where theorems are derived mathematically (i.e through logic) RogertheShrubber said: I see that you conveniently deleted my following statement so let me restate this for posterity. Countable quantities are measurable by definition, and uncountable quantities are a function of countable quantities. That is, we can show a quantity is uncountable by proving that it is not countable. "Quantities itself is measurable by definition." Not necessarily, only within certain axiomatic systems. RogertheShrubber said: This is a form of the affirming the consequent fallacy. Supposing that X has properties (a, b), it does not follow that Y, which has property (b), must also have property (a). I'll give an example in the same grammar:"Rigorous logic does not make something objective." mathematics is objective, if you agree then you must agree that rigorous logic makes something objective. "Bananas are yellow. (Bananas are also a fruit) If you agree then you must agree that fruits are yellow." -- the venerable @RogertheShrubber This is clearly false. RogertheShrubber said: Intuition that does not require any deliberate judgment, unless you mean to suggest that science is not objective, or that science that requires intuition is equivalent to the deliberate judgment involved in thinking about how much a person enjoys Monet or the Bible. In other words, either you are falsifying science with this line of reasoning, or you are trivializing it."Premises that are independent of individual judgment" in mathematics they are not, axioms are informed by intuition. RogertheShrubber said: Incorrect, rigor refers to validity not soundness. I don't have to demonstrate that 1 actually refers to anything in mathematics to demonstrate rigor.P1. I believe action anime are good. If you were to show that 1. there is a valid justification for why action anime are good (that which is self consistent) and 2. that SAO is indeed an action anime then yes this would be a rigorous and thus objective case. Although this would likely do little to convince many people. P2. SAO is an action anime. C1. SAO is good. That's a rigorous, if trivial, defense of an 100% subjective opinion. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Peaceful_Critic said: RogertheShrubber said: I wouldn't count outside enjoyment as something the show did well though. I'm not sure you can say you enjoyed a series if you laughed at it the whole time. You enjoyed thinking about how bad it is. It wasn't about enjoying a show."Humor is something of artistic value though, just not in the unintentionally laughing at this way." yes i agree it has some value but my point was that in the context of something which is so bad that it's funny this comedy has little value (but not none). "The work needs to be well written to make me enjoy it." but you just gave an example where this is not the case. if a series were so bad it were funny you would enjoy it but clearly it is not well written. "I wouldn't count outside enjoyment as something the show did well though. I'm not sure you can say you enjoyed a series if you laughed at it the whole time. You enjoyed thinking about how bad it is. It wasn't about enjoying a show" But you just said that humor had artistic value, I might be mischaracterizing you but i think you contradicted yourself here. I would argue that a show which made you laugh at it would be enjoyable and that the fact that it was funny does give some tiny shred of artistic value to it but very little. I would support this by saying a work is divorced from the creator after it is released meaning it doesn;t matter if they intended it to be funny or not, if it were funny then this has some amount of value. |
| I dont see anything wrong with people doing this tbh. It's not like it doesn't make sense after all only because it's harder for someone to comprehend why. Separating is totally fine even if a person can't really give much reasons as to why they like or dislike whatever it is, regardless of their score. |
 |
Kawhi said: This thread is frying my brain, as someone that barely got through the special ed math class at high school Well if a skimmer's tl;dr is good enough for you, basically what's going on is that a lot of users here have a hard time understanding what objectivity is so they insist it's humanly impossible and call it a day until someone rains on their parade, because how dare anyone try to explain why they like certain things in anime and don't like others. |
thewiru said: HyperL said: Many people are straight up afraid of relativism for some damn reason (must be the JP effect). We gotta accept that many 'things' in so called 'existence' are indeed relativistic in nature, most especially those related to quality evaluation. "His [Walter Block's] thesis is that discrimination -- choosing one thing over another -- is an inevitable feature of the material world where scarcity of goods and time is the pervasive feature. There is no getting around it. You must discriminate, and therefore you must have the freedom to discriminate, which only means the freedom to choose. Without discrimination, there is no economizing taking place. It is chaos. The market embeds institutions that assist people in making the wisest possible choices given the alternatives. In this sense, discrimination is rational and socially optimal. For the state to presume to criminalize it based on social and political priorities amounts to a subversion of the market and of human liberty that leads to social conflict. The empirical detail in this work is as rigorous as the argument is radical. What politics regards as a dangerous inequality, Block regards as perfectly rational given existing realities." Objective criteria are nescessary, otherwise there will be no way to discriminate (Make a value judgement) between something good and something bad, so the quality of such thing would go down. I know it is already a jaded example... but just look at post-modern art. That's assuming I even agree with half of this Block guy's assertions. I agree that we need criterias in order to make a quality evaluation. Btw, I'm considering quality and value as different things here. I disagree, however, on the notion that any of these criterias are de facto objective, or in other words, inherent in its value or status as a parameter of evaluation. |
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
RogertheShrubber said: I fully understand that, but what you do not understand is that the rules for real numbers does not apply necessarily to any other system, and that there are different rules for different systems does not contradict anything such as the objectivity of the rules, which are by definition, within the respective systems.katsucats said: No, that's the rules of a ring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics) Note: Not a field, my mistake. Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system. Rigor is irrelevant when it comes to axioms because they are by definition self-evident. X=X has to be true, and it cannot be proven to be true. "Integers, rational numbers, and real numbers are rings that happen to be useful when teaching kids how to do algebra, because they are intuitive. Rational and real numbers are fields. But there is literally nothing in mathematics that says any system of math has to be a ring or a field, or include the number "2". In fact, the set of all odd numbers does not contain "2", so 1+1 would be undefined in that system." Yes I agree 1+1 would be undefined in the group of positive integers under the operation addition but this does not mean that the fact that 1+1=2 does not follow from the axioms of mathematics within the group of real numbers under addition. The fact that 1+1 does not always equal 2 depending on your system does not mean it does not follow from the axioms, this is actually fundamentally what I am trying to get you to understand. What you can't understand is that the rules being arbitrary make them subjective as a model for reality without demonstrative evidence for their veracity (in which case they are no longer arbitrary), but objective within the logical system -- because logical systems are rules that follow statements presumed to be fact, or premises. The soundness of those premises are not relevant to the validity or rigor of the argument. However, that objectivity exists only within the system. Calling logic objective with respect to aesthetic analysis only makes sense on the premise that your foundational opinions are presumed -- but they are not by anyone reading the analysis, including its author, if he is honest. The aesthetic analysis, which includes the foundational opinions, must then be subjective. Axioms are things which are self-evidently true according to the definition in the dictionary. You can pervert the term to apply to rules in the typical fashion of your semantic fallacies, but that wouldn't change the fact that the rules become true only within the context of the system, and not without. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» What anime do a lot of people consider to be one of the greatest that you think is just good?arinthach - 2 hours ago |
16 |
by Firwik_Howlo
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Is there an extension that helps you fully block someone?APolygons2 - 1 minute ago |
0 |
by APolygons2
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Which are the cutest anime girl pout scenes ? (not fan arts but real scenes)DarkGamerA - Jul 8, 2022 |
19 |
by Blowingbeauty
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Would you be in favor of tipping Crunchyroll for every anime you complete on their platform? ( 1 2 )Dije - Apr 16 |
57 |
by mo_lave
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» I made a fake anime seasonal chart using AI. Which of these sounds interesting to you? ( 1 2 )FFandMMfan - Apr 13 |
98 |
by FFandMMfan
»»
17 minutes ago |